/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2202365]

I really need someone to access an article titled
>Women of Color and the Global Sex Trade:
Transnational Feminist Perspectives. by Kempadoo
I found it on JSTOR, but I can't access it, and I won't be in a position to have internet until next week.

It can be found here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/40338451

I've seen threads where people with access help those without, if anyone could get me a pdf of this, I would love them forever.

[Anonymous No.2202372]

Here you go, friend:

http://www.mediafire.com/?rnlsw6relwmvl64

[Anonymous No.2202374]

>>2202372
You have a beautiful soul.

[Anonymous No.2202415]

>>2202372
If you come back, could you grab me
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594677
too? I'm trying to write a ten page synthesis paper and am collecting articles for research.

[Anonymous No.2202430]

>>2202415
whats the actual paper name? i can get the pdf if i know the name

[Anonymous No.2202433]

>>2202415
oh nvm lol sorry. tired. hold on i got it

[Anonymous No.2202435]

http://www.mediafire.com/?ott27z6xxmkywm1

[Anonymous No.2202436]

>>2202435
>>2202433
>>2202430
<3

[Anonymous No.2202502]

Since there seems to be a thread going right now...

If somebody could find "Mao Zedong on contradictions under socialism revisited" for me, I'd be thankful

[Anonymous No.2202504]

>>2202502

cant find that, u looking for The Cultural Revolution Revisited: Dissonance Reduction or Power Maximization?

[Anonymous No.2202508]

>>2202504
uh, no.

Mao Zedong on contradictions under socialism revisited
Author: Keith Forster
Journal of Contemporary China Volume 4, Issue 10, 1995

It isn't an issue if you can't find it, but it would be nice

[Anonymous No.2202507]

>>2202502
>>2202504

actually scratch that, this what ur lookin for?

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-7/mswv7_466.htm

[Anonymous No.2202509]

>>2202507
Erm... your diligence is nice, but see >>2202508

[Anonymous No.2202513]

>>2202508
I see a lot by that guy, but nothing by that title.
or even the journal.

[Anonymous No.2202515]

>>2202502


wtf u need that for, holmes

[Anonymous No.2202514]

> Women of Color and the Global Sex Trade:
Transnational Feminist Perspectives

so glad i graduated already so i never have to think about this kind of academic fag shit anymore

oh wait, im just on thanksgiving break from my second degree, shit oh well.

[Anonymous No.2202520]

>>2202508
lol, I see volumes 4 and 6, but not 5.
Such is life

[Anonymous No.2202526]

>>2202515
I'm writing a paper looking at the relationship of ideology and policy in the early PRC. Since Mao essentially controlled all philosophy at this point in time, he has the last word here.

[Anonymous No.2202530]

>>2202526
yes, but that paper doesn't sound like it's written by mao, it sounds like some shit some academic fag wrote like 40 years later. if you want to know what mao actually said all of his published writing is available free on the intertubes

[Anonymous No.2202534]

>>2202526
so what is the thesis of this paper

[Anonymous No.2202535]

>>2202530
I don't have time for that, not to mention that this tended to evolve progressively for Mao as time passed- hence the need to consult party speeches and the like constantly.

[Anonymous No.2202537]

>>2202535
mao's ideology didn't change that much dude

[Anonymous No.2202540]

maos stance on things only changed when forced by other people, the cultural revolution was a reaction to the failure of the great leap forward. he was losing credibility with people and so he started a bunch of shit to hold on to power. the problem was, mao was an awesome guerilla leader but less good at running a country. but this happens in most socialist places, the guys are good at revolution, bad at governing.

[Anonymous No.2202544]

I've read the lifes of Stalin and Steve Jobs and these dudes have a lot more in common than just their looks (in their 20s). It's weird tho since they do look so similar in their youth. I wonder if there is something about those kind of eyes or facial structure that makes people more likely to bend to your will? shits weird.

[Anonymous No.2202545]

>>2202544
also i should add I'm not hatin, Steve Jobs and Stalin are some of my favorite dudes of history.

[Anonymous No.2202549]

>>2202534
That the Chinese were more socialist than the Russians Socialists in every sense of the word, Mao seems to be struggling vainly to enact "socialist" policy that just doesn't work and ends up blaming the party when it tried to moderate. He represents extreme leftism and seems to have believed in the need for a second internal revolution within the vanguard party and the means of production to genuinely establish socialist control. He is critical of Soviet failure to attain this.

Mao wanted the CCP to achieve socialism in ~5 years to overtake the Russians, when this failed and lost power he grew fearful of right resurgence under attempted to create a genuine proletarian revolutionary class during the cultural revolution. His fears about right resurgence were completely founded and capitalism crept back in with Deng Xiaoping, but the truth is that classlessness is essentially impossible within the modern industrial state. At best, all he could do was continually purge everyone.

[Anonymous No.2202559]

Mao didn't do shit for modern China.

Niggas don't know bout my deng xiaoping

[Anonymous No.2202560]

>>2202549
Well Mao's socialist policy never could have succeed because China wasn't an industrialized country. According to orthodox Marxism you can't have a socialist revolution until after the bourgeois revolution. China's only real shot at a socialist revolution was the uprising in Shanghai in 1927 but thousands of communist workers got killed (wkipedia seems to be fibbing about the numbers their article) which basically wiped out any base in the working class. Mao took over the party after and basically just lead a peasant rebellion. Really most of the revolutions in Asia were nationalist uprisings against western and Japanese imperialism and not really socialist. They were just "socialist brand" so they could get help from the Soviets. I'm pretty sure the Russians were more socialist than the Chinese

[Anonymous No.2202563]

>>2202559
Mao did a lot though. He kept the country unified when imperialists wanted to break it apart like India or now Russia. Also his education reforms made today's China possible, while places like India still have huge problems with even basic literacy.

[Anonymous No.2202566]

>>2202559

>Deng Xiaoping
>turned China into a haven for cheap labour, inhuman working conditions, and squalor
>at the same time modernized industry, redirected focus from agriculture to consumer goods, and attempted to destroy corruption
>also that whole Tiananmen thing

[Anonymous No.2202576]

>>2202566
Tiananmen was vastly overrated. Read the wikileaks memos that came out in the last couple years. The casualties were completely exaggerated and the West knew it but figured it made for better propaganda to claim it was a slaughter. Also let's not forget a lot of police/troops were killed by the protesters. I assure you if American protestors at Zucotti Park killed two dozen cops all hell would break loose. Second, industrializing China is the only way to take people out of poverty. 100s of millions of people have been pulled out of poverty in the last couple decades. Not to mention dissing the "slave labor" jobs in China seems like a real case of sour grapes when Americans are out of work and wish the days of plentiful factory jobs was still there.

[Anonymous No.2202582]

>>2202576
>Chinese people work hard and study hard
>They amass a huge portion of world $$
>Their youth dominate the University systems worldwide

Americans
>SLAVE LABORRRR THEY HAVE TO WORK
>IN AMURRRKA WE HAVE THE FREEDOM TO COMPLAIN AND WE WANT OUR 8 HOUR WORK DAYS DGOD DAMMIT
>I WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET HOME AND DRINK BEERS AND WATCH MARATHONS OF TBBT

Seriously, America?

[Anonymous No.2202606]

>>2202560
You seem to know sweet fuck all about Vietnamese class structure and rural proletarianisation. Hint: fish sauce.

[Anonymous No.2202637]

>>2202606
I hate to break it to you dude but most of the South East Asian "revolutions" were just anti-imperialist wars of independence. You know why the wave of revolution stopped at Thailand? Because Thailand was never subjugated by French imperialism. Why wasn't there a communist revolution in the Philippines? Because the Philippine revolution happened before the Russian Revolution and so they turned to America for help instead! Just like Ho Chi Minh appealed to the United States for help too! So if USA had helped him then no way would Vietnam be communist. But since America decided to fight him instead it pushed him towards the Soviets. Don't get me wrong Ho Chi Minh was always left leaning but like Castro he didn't become "hardcore" until forced into a corner by the United States. Look at every revolution in the 20th century. The Russians are the only ones who weren't fighting an imperialist army! But even then their revolution wasn't "natural" it was triggered by World War One.

[Anonymous No.2202658]

How is it that every attempt to create utopia has always ended up with tyranny and bloodshed?

[Dr. Seussicide (SLAF) No.2202660]

>>2202658
You should read Animal Farm.

[♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.2202667]

>>2202582
should be "seriously, china" since the labor in china isn't capture their share of value.

at the end of the day, the lack of power for migrant labor in china and other parts of the world is still what this situation is built upon. it is just that average americans are touched by it now so they have begun to care.

[Anonymous No.2202788]

>derp derp China will dominate us

Every time i see people thinking this way, i redirect them to Krugman's article 'The Myth of Asia's Miracle' from Foreign Affairs.

http://media.ft.com/cms/b8268ffe-7572-11db-aea1-0000779e2340.pdf

It's very eye opening to see that the way we feel about China today is nothing new. Back in the day it was the Soviets who were going to bury the US with their industrial might, then in the 80s it was the Japanese with their superior efficiency and growth. Im not saying it's not possible for the Chinese economy to overcome the US, but that we cannot simply base that assumption on current growth levels alone.

And this article is old, there are much more recent and more in depth analysis of the problems the Chinese economy faces.

[Anonymous No.2202790]

>>2202658
read

r
a
n
d

But really don't.

[Anonymous No.2202795]

>>2202658
including capitalist utopias

[Anonymous No.2202802]

>>2202788
well, it's true there's no reason to fear china but also it's worth noting krugman is a known china hater/blamer. he may be liberal domestically but he has no problem publishing some bullshit about asia. also china has always been one of the most advanced civilizations across world history so if you're expecting them to just run out of steam like japan you're probably wrong. sure, chinas been off it's game for the puny little two centuries america has existed but for the other 3000 or so years china has been pretty damn dominant. japan was never a dominant power in asia historically and russia was not particularly strong either, as you can see most of it's culture is just a deformed version of european culture despite being located in asia...but yes, if china made it out of the last 200 years in one piece (except for renegade province taiwan) then don't expect a collapse any time soon. the west is closer to collapse than china is, that's the truth.

[Anonymous No.2202875]

oh! you still there JSTOR guy?
i have a couple articles that i cant acess cause my univ only suscribed maths :/

[Anonymous No.2202877]

>>2202875
I have the same problem anon, my uni has the most retarded subscriptions possible, all of the fucking money goes into medicine whilst my fees don't even let me read the most essential works of criticism

[Anonymous No.2202884]

>>2202875
voilà what i need:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3683971
http://www.jstor.org/stable/223368

someone with JSTOR access /lit/?

[Anonymous No.2202886]

>>2202884
Checking if I have the access now

[Anonymous No.2202892]

>>2202884
Here's the Wittgenstein one
http://www.mediafire.com/?u3s740qcmhbolqw
Couldn't access the other

[Anonymous No.2202907]

>>2202892
thanx! :D

[Anonymous No.2202996]

>>2202560
I am aware of the unorthodox character, as was the Chinese leadership. The rhetoric of the time was that the vanguard party could create socialism by forming the proper conditions required for classness to occur. Mao adapted Socialism to china with "Chinese characteristics", hence the rural peasant thing was seen as a manifestation of preindustrial class struggle. The Great Leap Forward was the CCP's overexaggerated attempt to create socialism, and was genuinely seems to have been put forward in good faith. The Idea was to create a universal proletariat through the assumption of industrial production by all members of the populance. It failed and caused a massive famine, for obvious reasons, but this indicates that the Chinese leadership considered socialism seriously at this point in time.

While what you are saying about anti-imperialist rebellion and peasant uprisings is entirely true, but the CCP did act in an ideologically consistent fashion until the emergence of Deng Xiaoping. Saying they considered themselves socialist merely for Soviet aid would be a lie, and does not adequately explain the sino-soviet split (which was founded on Criticism towards Soviet "revisionism" and their inability to collectivize).

It is easy to forget that up until the cultural there had not been a mass purging of party officials, and as a result Chinese leadership at this point was still generally first-generation communists- and acted accordingly. This shift to extreme leftism and the excesses of the cultural revolution only make consistent sense when looked at in this manner

[Anonymous No.2203016]

>>2202996
no, no, i didn't mean china wasn't truly socialist, they were, but they had problems synching with orthodox marxist theory which is where you get some trotskyists labeling mao a "bonapartist", etc. I guess the problem comes down to do you consider agrarian land reform a socialist revolution? I just meant like russia was more like how marx had expected things to go. I think the great leap was done in good faith, mao believed in marxism-leninism and was expecting it to work, also the land reform of 1951 worked really well and standards of living did go up! So i think they figured hey lets make the collective farms even bigger and get more gains! too bad bigger isn't always better with this kind of labor powered agriculture. also during the first land reform the whole new surplus output got taken up by high birth rate! the peasants got richer, so what did they do? have more kids and get poor again! this is where you can find the roots of the one child policy.

Oh also I would just add that there are a quite a few Marxists who don't even consider the USSR really socialist. They call it state capitalism and a "deformed workers state" so for some people even the communism of the Soviet Union is an open question. Man, it's fun stuff to debate. I think studying history with Marxist methods really opens up your mind even if you don't agree with all of their conclusions or theories.

[Anonymous No.2203051]

>>2202907
>>2202884
bampin for this one
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3683971

JSTOR anyone?

[Anonymous No.2203068]

>>2203016
Aha, it is. Makes you feel sorry for the poor saps trying to implement it however, it becomes apparent most of what they desired is essentially impossible. The assertion that the state-entity will ever shrink does not appear applicable in the slightest, and the notion of diminishing division-of-labor is almost completely absurd.

What is interesting about Mao however, is that he admits to a new bourgeoisie existing within socialist states, the managerial class. He seems to believe that while the transition to ownership by the whole people has been attained, the distribution of of product according to one's needs was never attained under socialism. His notions of volunteerism, anti-specialization, and mixing of labor mechanisms seem to stem directly from this. The cultural revolution reflects a internal power struggle to be sure, but it also ideologically reflected Mao's attempt to destroy the managerial class and its attempt to reassert capitalism (Xiaoping's Pragmatism) as had occurred in the other socialist states. Since class identity had a political dimension for him which could be separated from economic status (IE capitalists could occasionally represent the left and vice-versa), he seems to have genuinely believed the Red Guards to have represented the left.

Anyways, very interesting to be sure.